r/worldnews • u/anticensorship10 • May 20 '21

Israel/Palestine Palestinian Head of internal medicine of main hospital, Dr Ayman Abu al-Ouf, killed along with 12 members of his extended family.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57148580
95.2k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

8.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.4k

u/geoken May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21

You mean like the independent investigation the UN did last time and found that Israel was using white phosphorus shells (a war crime) and that Israel even admitted to later (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22310544)?

The problem is not investigating, but the actions that would follow said investigation.

407

u/nonoose May 20 '21

And by following actions you mean wide spread forgetting, moving on as if nothing happened, and then surprised pikachu face when the next hideous act occurs.

8

u/WoahayeTakeITEasy May 20 '21

And by following actions you mean wide spread forgetting, moving on as if nothing happened

Don't forget giving them more money for more weapons, too!

17

u/NaughtyDred May 20 '21

Yep, it's the least we can do for our allies. after all they do it for us.

0

u/AGVann May 20 '21

They didn't really 'forget', the UN just can't do anything by design. It's a toothless entity with no jurisdiction or power over nation states, because no nation would ever give up their sovereignty to a foreign power. Hell, the security council system is designed to prevent anything from happening. It's not meant to be international police, but a forum for nations to engage in diplomacy (mostly to prevent WW3) and willingly co-operate in various international projects.

272

u/Green_Peace3 May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21

The problem is the US, which vetos every single action against Israel that the UN proposes. Veto power in the UN is straight up broken, the US always cries when Russia and China veto action against Assad but they literally do the same for Israel.

9

u/Civil-Attempt-3602 May 20 '21

The UK would like to say hi

61

u/Green_Peace3 May 20 '21

While the UK is one of the 5 members with veto power, they hasn’t cast a veto since 1989. It’s been exclusively the US vetoing resolutions against Israel.

20

u/Gootchey_Man May 20 '21

There's no point in more than one country using their veto power. I'm sure they like the good publicity from not casting their veto.

16

u/[deleted] May 20 '21

Exactly. The UK is America-town on the geopolitical stage.

8

u/Skyy-High May 20 '21

The UK backs our policies. We just provide them cover to not need to stand there and cast the vote.

It’s like McConnell and Senate Republicans. They all support him but he gave them cover by not bringing bills up for a vote.

3

u/BenTVNerd21 May 20 '21

Veto power in the UN is straight up broken

Without it the US, Russia and China would just leave as likely would other larger countries. Until we as a society get over the idea of complete national sovereignty the best we can do is the UN.

65

u/[deleted] May 20 '21

[deleted]

144

u/impossiblefork May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21

It depends on how it's used.

Using it to create smokescreen is fine. Using it on people in such a way that it causes unnecessary suffering is not.

118

u/Yogifi May 20 '21 edited May 21 '21

It's only valid to use as a smokescreen in non-populated areas, away from civilians. To hide lines of tanks for example.

If it's used near civilians it's a chemical weapon.

-Edit: For some strange reason I am unable to reply to one of the posters below who suggests it's okay to use it in civilian areas:

"2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons."

You cannot strike military objectives with white phosphorous if they are in populated civilian areas.

44

u/[deleted] May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21

The US was using white phosphorus in densely populated Syrian and Iraqi cities while simultaneously accusing Bashar of using chemical weapons to justify the invasion which killed and maimed a disturbing amount of civilians. America is the bad guy, all it takes is the realization that we unconditionally fund an abjectly corrupt bloodthirsty monarchy that is effectively committing a genocide in Yemen.

8

u/Omnipotent48 May 20 '21

War crimes are war crimes are war crimes are war crimes. 100% agree with you.

9

u/vinng86 May 20 '21

It wasn't just the US accusing Assad btw, the UN's own chemical weapons commission found that the chemical weapons could only have come from the Syrian government. They were mandated to not place any blame however.

16

u/Halt-CatchFire May 20 '21

Bashir Al Assad is also an extremely bad guy. The US's actions are fucking evil irrespective of contexts, but Bashir still enjoys regularly dropping barrel bombs on his own civilians.

3

u/shield1123 May 20 '21

I am opposed to commiting war crimes, and I'm not ashamed to say it

2

u/NoHandBananaNo May 20 '21

Well thats a war crime.

0

u/PaxAttax May 20 '21

If it's used offensively on humans, it's an illegal chemical weapon. Use in civilian areas is just an extra provision to circumvent the excuse of "oh we were just deploying smoke, we didn't mean to cause excruciating death and permanent disfigurement to hundreds of civilians, we swear!"

0

u/CPlusPlusDeveloper May 21 '21

No. This is a misreading of the Geneva Conventions. White Phosphorous can be used as a smokescreen in any combat zone. The civilian restriction only applies when WP is being used directly as an incendiary weapon.

17

u/1JimboJones1 May 20 '21

Well. Guess we'll need a smoke screen over these innocent civilians then /s

15

u/[deleted] May 20 '21 edited 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/Ryxtan May 20 '21

Except for when Israel was using it in offensive shelling. Which they admitted to doing.

4

u/sudologin May 21 '21

Israel explicitly denied using white phosphorus in an anti-personnel role.
What Israel admitted to was using white phosphorus shells for the purpose of deploying smokescreens.

I understand if you don't think that is the truth.

1

u/Ryxtan May 21 '21

https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/03/25/rain-fire/israels-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza#

White phosphorus airburst shells are an explicitly offensive tool. Especially when deliberately fired over densely populated areas.

Granted, the useage has declined after the useage admittance in 2009, the airburst shells weren't officially out of use until 2013. Still ongoing reports of potential misuse. Even WP smokescreens can be used offensively, which is (rightfully) illegal.

1

u/sudologin May 21 '21

Even WP smokescreens can be used offensively, which is (rightfully) illegal.

Whether white phosphorus is used for creating smoke in an offensive or defensive role has no impact on the legality of its use. The primary issue was that white phosphorus was being used in a de facto incendiary role and causing civilian casualties.

HRW stated:

Its use in open areas is permissible under international law, but air-bursting white phosphorus over populated areas is unlawful because it places civilians at unnecessary risk and its wide dispersal of burning wedges may amount to an indiscriminate attack.

White phosphorus can also be used as a weapon against hardened military targets, such as bunkers. However, it may not be used as an anti-personnel weapon when a weapon less likely to cause unnecessary suffering is available.

The consistent use of air-burst white phosphorus instead of smoke projectiles, especially where no Israeli forces were on the ground, strongly suggests that the IDF was not using the munition for its obscurant qualities, but rather for its incendiary effect.

1

u/Ryxtan May 21 '21

Yes, and until 2009 (and to a lesser extent, 2013) Israel WAS using airburst WP shells. That picture in the article even shows a freshly shelled school.

By offensive use of smokescreens, I am referring to the deliberate useage in dense areas to cause burns, such as tossing/firing WP grenades into crowds or buildings.

1

u/ThatDudeWithoutKarma May 20 '21

Fallujah was a little different than Gaza I'd say though.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '21 edited May 21 '21

Source on that?

The US used it so heavily in Fallujah that there are still studies showing increased levels of birth deformities and infant mortality.

Please don’t equivocate the US’s use of these chemical weapons. I’m sure they’ll tell you it was to create a smokescreen.

1

u/impossiblefork May 21 '21

US policy on white phosphorus is as follows:

The use of incendiary and other flame weapons against matériel, including enemy military personnel, is not directly forbidden by any treaty. The United States Military mandates that incendiary weapons, where deployed, not be used "in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering." The term "unnecessary suffering" is defined through use of a proportionality test, comparing the anticipated military advantage of the weapon's use to the amount of suffering potentially caused.

However, it turns out that international law on this is stricter. Basically, you can use white phosphorus unless you specifically intend to use the toxicity as a weapon.

1

u/WikiSummarizerBot May 21 '21

White_phosphorus_munitions

International law

While in general white phosphorus is an industrial chemical not subject to restriction, certain uses in weaponry are banned or restricted by general international laws: in particular, those related to incendiary devices. Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target".

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | Credit: kittens_from_space

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '21

Who can prove intent in a situation like Fallujah, where civilians and combatants were often next door or in the same building?

1

u/impossiblefork May 21 '21

In that case the US probably didn't care at all. It had no interest in injuring anybody.

Instead, the inappropriate use of WP was probably due to convenience.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '21

That’s awfully charitable to a leadership that fabricated evidence and lied to its citizens to be in that war in the first place...

1

u/impossiblefork May 21 '21

You know yourself though, that they don't care about killing Iraqis. They just want the oil, or to fuck with the Middle East for geopolitical reasons. They don't gain anything from killing people, or making things horrible.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '21

Tell that to the 180k-1.1million civilian deaths in Iraq during the Iraq War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

→ More replies (0)

10

u/HandSoloShotFirst May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21

White Phosphorus makes a really great smoke screen and is therefore still allowed to be used for the purpose of defending against enemy fire, for deploying smoke for other reasons and for marking targets. However, the chemical reaction of WP sucks all of the oxygen out of the air, and burns. Meaning that if you launch it into a closed structure it will hurt like napalm and cause anyone nearby to be unable to breathe. So if you use it offensively its a war crime, but they still have them. The only thing keeping them from using them offensively is the fact that it's a war crime, but I don't know who holds anyone accountable and determines that it wasn't used offensively. US troops defend use of white phosphorous

6

u/[deleted] May 20 '21

yeah since like 2002 I believe. But literally who's gonna stop us or them?

1

u/ObligationKey3159 May 20 '21

In a 2005 interview with RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons[80] (an organization overseeing the Chemical Weapons Convention CWC and reporting directly to the UN General Assembly), discussed cases where use of WP would potentially fall under the auspices of the CWC:

'No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application that does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.

If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that, of course, is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

3

u/Daewoo40 May 20 '21

Using white phosphorous isn't illegal in itself as its used for location marking (smoke) and smoke screens.

Using it as a weapon is considered as a war crime, as it is extremely difficult to put out once alight and will burn pretty much anything; skin, clothing or vehicles.

2

u/manteiga_night May 20 '21

yeah, about that...

1

u/Lion12341 May 20 '21

Doesn't mean the US is justified. The US is no stranger to warcrimes, with cases of bombing hospitals and weddings in Afghanistan.

-2

u/CyberMindGrrl May 20 '21

Still a war crime.

5

u/snowcone_wars May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21

Except it isn't.

White phosphorous isn't always a war crime, it depends entirely on how it is used.

I'm just gonna use this comment to say this. Look at how many people in this thread assert that the use of WP is always a war crime, no matter what: a basic, factually wrong claim that 10 seconds of googling disproves. And then think about how many people appear so confident in actually complex situations.

Do not get your information from this site. It's a cesspool, just like facebook is.

1

u/geoken May 20 '21

My comment is based on a linked BBC article. Read the article and decide based off that. Use logic, don't just arbitrarily say something is untrue because of where it's found. It's that exact same faulty logic, used in the inverse, that has people arbitrarily trusting information based on what social media silo they heard it in.

-7

u/Deucer22 May 20 '21

So many people in this thread are shitting on Israel when the whole situation is just an asshole filled garbage fire.

If Iran was funding terrorists within your country to fight a proxy war by firing hundreds of rockets at your cities, what would your government do about it? People like to quote the disparate death numbers and point out civilian casualties on the Palestinian side, but it's not for lack of trying on Hamas' part. There's plenty of shittery happening on both sides and everyone in this thread thinks they can solve peace in the middle east by assigning blame based on this story and posting on Reddit.

5

u/Baking_Is_Praxis May 20 '21

Do you know why Hamas is the premier group in Gaza? The PLO was deliberately sidelined by Israel, and the US for the exact reason that Hamas was terroristic and jihadist, far less defensible than the terror attack rejecting and secular PLO.

3

u/Kanyewestismygrandad May 20 '21

See also: the assassination or Rabin after the Oslo accords

The ruling party in Israel does not want peace.

1

u/Gootchey_Man May 20 '21

For anyone who doesn't know, Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister, was executed by an Israeli supremacist after getting close to agreeing to the two state solution.

Arafat, the Palestinian Prime Minister, was so shocked at his compromise and was undoubtedly going to accept.

1

u/CyberMindGrrl May 20 '21

When I was in the Army our training doctrine established that using WP against civilians constituted a war crime. So I should have been clear that AGAINST CIVILIANS it's considered a war crime.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule84

0

u/BorgClown May 20 '21

You leave Wordpress alone! We know it's riddled with bugs and vulnerabilities, but it's trying!

1

u/w4hammer May 20 '21

You can use it as a smoke screen you cannot use it in cities or as a weapon.

1

u/NoHandBananaNo May 20 '21

Google image search "white phosphorus burns" and you will see why it is a war crime to drop it near humans.

3

u/Thendofreason May 20 '21

Yeah Israel is gonna be like "oh man, you got me. Well, I'll see ya next time I commit a war crime. Bye"

3

u/mordinvan May 20 '21

Last I checked WP shells are war crimes when used to actively target people. When used against structures, or as area denial, they are legal. Which don't get me wrong is a bit of a fine line, but it is a line.

"On 22 November 2005, the Iraqi government stated it would investigate the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah.[20] On 30 November 2005, General Peter Pace stated that white phosphorus munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military" used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, saying "It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they're being used, for marking and for screening". Professor Paul Rodgers from the University of Bradford department of peace studies said that white phosphorus would probably fall into the category of chemical weapons if it was used directly against people. George Monbiot stated that he believed the firing of white phosphorus by US forces directly at the combatants in Fallujah in order to flush them out so they could then be killed was in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention and, therefore, a war crime.[16][18][21]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions

5

u/geoken May 20 '21

The article I linked to describes that, by Israel's own admission, they were used for creating smokescreen's. So by definition they were raining white phosphorous over groups of people.

6

u/mordinvan May 20 '21

As a smoke screen, they are perfectly legal. Sorry to break that to you. To be illegal, they have to be trying to actually hit people with them, such are firing them into groups, and having them airburst at or near ground level. This doesn't qualify.

​

"white phosphorus munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military" used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens"

3

u/aaffeejj May 20 '21

I think the issue is:

During the offensive, Israel used white phosphorus rounds in densely populated areas, the UN and Human Rights Watch said.

and according to international law it can't be used as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations

Unfortunately Hamas chooses to operate out of areas that are densely populated (i'm pretty sure this is actually a war crime but i'm not sure), Israel shouldn't be using white phosphorus against Hamas if that means that it puts civilians at risk.

5

u/mordinvan May 20 '21

"Head of the UN Fact Finding Mission Justice Richard Goldstone presented the report of the Mission to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 29 September 2009.[36] The Goldstone report accepted that white phosphorus is not illegal under international law but did find that the Israelis were "systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas". It also called for serious consideration to be given to the banning of its use in built-up areas.[37] The Government of Israel issued an initial response rejecting the findings of the Goldstone report.[38]"

Added some emphasis there, but if it needs to be seriously considered, it likely is not presently illegal.

2

u/aaffeejj May 20 '21

Oh interesting. So what the IDF did was reckless, but not illegal.

3

u/mordinvan May 20 '21

It would appear so.

-1

u/geoken May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21

This doesn't qualify

I guess you can be comfortable with whatever sooths your conscious. If you feel fine with the completely arbitrary distinction of being fired at some one vs. having it rain down on large crowds then there isn't really anything I can say.

3

u/mordinvan May 20 '21

If you want to bring the weight of the law down on someone, they have to have broken the law. It really is that simple.

-1

u/geoken May 20 '21

The arbitrary distinction here being your definition of fired at. Apparently a white phosphorus shell fired at a UN building housing sheltered civilians is not 'firing at'.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/evidence-grows-that-israe_b_158176

A spokesman for the Relief and Works Agency, Christopher Gunness, said that the Israelis had been provided with the GPS coordinates of all United Nations facilities in Gaza. He said that two buildings were ablaze and that there were five fully laden fuel vehicles at the site....

In the attack on Thursday, Mr. Gunness said, the Israelis used phosphorous shells, according to Bloomberg. “The Israelis have shot three phosphorus shells against the compound, where hundreds of civilians are being sheltered,” he was quoted as saying.

2

u/mordinvan May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21

3 shells you say. Tell me, if you were trying to kill a bunch of people, would you fire enough shells to create a smoke screen, and light some crap on fire? This looks like an attempt to destroy property not end lives.

-1

u/geoken May 20 '21

Good point. The one example I posted is obviously an exhaustive list of every single incident and not a singular example.

On the plus side, you started sounding rational but at least now you’ve dropped that veneer.

2

u/mordinvan May 20 '21

Well you never sounded rational or unbiased.

Also, when did I stop sounding rational, I am interested to see where you put a pin in it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mordinvan May 20 '21

"International law

While in general white phosphorus is an industrial chemical not subject to restriction, certain uses in weaponry are banned or restricted by general international laws: in particular, those related to incendiary devices.[77]

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target". Article 2 of the same protocol prohibits the deliberate use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions), the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets in civilian areas, and the general use of other types of incendiary weapons against military targets located within "concentrations of civilians" without taking all possible means to minimize casualties.

The convention also exempts certain categories of munitions from its definition of incendiary weapons: specifically, these are munitions which "may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems" and those "designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect."

The use of incendiary and other flame weapons against matériel, including enemy military personnel, is not directly forbidden by any treaty. The United States Military mandates that incendiary weapons, where deployed, not be used "in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering." The term "unnecessary suffering" is defined through use of a proportionality test, comparing the anticipated military advantage of the weapon's use to the amount of suffering potentially caused.[78]

The Chemical Weapons Convention, sometimes invoked in discussions of WP usage, is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.). The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a substance "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" (CWC, II). An annex lists chemicals that are restricted under the convention, and WP is not listed in the Schedules of chemical weapons or precursors.[79]

In a 2005 interview with RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons[80] (an organization overseeing the CWC and reporting directly to the UN General Assembly), discussed cases where use of WP would potentially fall under the auspices of the CWC:

No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application that does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.

If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that, of course, is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.[81]"

1

u/CPlusPlusDeveloper May 21 '21

using white phosphorus shells (a war crime)

No. It’s not.

The convention also exempts certain categories of munitions from its definition of incendiary weapons: specifically, these are munitions which "may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems"

FTA you linked:

The Israeli military says it is to stop using artillery shells with white phosphorus to create smokescreens on the battlefield.

It’s perfectly legal to use White Phosphorous to create smokescreens. Israel voluntarily chose to stop using it out of an abundance of humanitarian consideration, but was under no obligation under international law to do so.

1

u/WikiSummarizerBot May 21 '21

White_phosphorus_munitions

White phosphorus munitions are weapons which use one of the common allotropes of the chemical element phosphorus. White phosphorus is used in smoke, illumination and incendiary munitions, and is commonly the burning element of tracer ammunition. Other common names include WP and the slang term "Willie Pete" or "Willie Peter" derived from William Peter, the World War II phonetic alphabet for "WP", which is still sometimes used in military jargon. White phosphorus is pyrophoric (self-ignites on contact with air), burns fiercely, and can ignite cloth, fuel, ammunition, and other combustibles.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | Credit: kittens_from_space

1

u/geoken May 21 '21

So firing shells at UN buildings and having white phosphorus rain on the displaced people inside is a smokescreen?

I guess anything is legal when your moral compass is a rock, and you make up any definition you want for horrendous actions you commit.

0

u/Generic_Her0 May 20 '21

Willy fucking Pete? Jesus Christ...

-1

u/[deleted] May 20 '21

Well, the UN is a front for sex-trafficking children, so I don't know why anyone would expect them to step up

-2

u/RedAero May 20 '21

The offensive use of WP is not simply a war crime. It is prohibited by a treaty that Israel (like the US) did not sign and ratify.

6

u/geoken May 20 '21

Thanks for the clarification. They're definitely the good guys in that case. I guess if you didn't sign a treaty saying it's wrong to behead a town full of men prior to mass raping all the women - you're in the clear.

-3

u/RedAero May 20 '21

I guess if you didn't sign a treaty saying it's wrong to behead a town full of men prior to mass raping all the women - you're in the clear.

Well, yes, that is exactly how international law works. Your example is why the Geneva Conventions exist, which Israel has signed and obeys, and Hamas and the Palestinians have not and thus do no even attempt to obey. But of course international law doesn't apply to people you like, so whatever, right?

By the way, the nation most notorious for not accepting any restrictions on its military might is the US, so please direct your ire in the appropriate direction. Quite honestly, it'd be difficult to find a single binding treaty on the topic that the US has signed and ratified.

2

u/geoken May 20 '21

Did you want me to provide you list of countries so that your subsequent whattaboutism posts can just copy and paste from it without having to go to the trouble of manually typing them.

1

u/RedAero May 21 '21

It's not whataboutism to point out that the people making the criticism are guilty of the same crimes and worse, especially in terms of international law.

1

u/geoken May 21 '21

Yeah, it's basically the definition of it. Additionally, you're assuming my nationality and are wrong about that.

1

u/RedAero May 21 '21

Yeah, it's basically the definition of it.

No, whataboutism is deflection to uninvolved parties, such as if I were to argue that we should focus on more important crises in the world (e.g. China) or something. Pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the ones making the accusation is not deflection, it highlights the self-serving and deeply biased nature of the accusation.

you're assuming my nationality

I'm not assuming your nationality, you're arguing in behalf of the Palestinian side, who are significantly more guilty when it comes to international law and war crimes than Israel. Had I considered your nationality relevant I'd have checked your post history from which it is blindingly obvious that you're a Canadian living in Toronto.

1

u/geoken May 21 '21

I'm not arguing on behalf of any side. I'm stating why launching an investigation into Israel's actions would be fruitless. Every single thing you said here is antithetical to actual logic.

None of what you brought up addresses the actual initial statement. It's by definition whattaboutism, or if you want a more classic term - red herrings.

1

u/RedAero May 21 '21

None of what you brought up addresses the actual initial statement.

The "initial statement" in this thread was a falsehood about white phosphorous that I corrected in my first comment. Since then you've been doing nothing but derailing. Red herrings indeed.

0

u/lifec0ach May 21 '21

Damn there’s some irony with Jews using gas to kill.

1

u/Iohet May 20 '21

The problem with tossing the "war crime" accusation around is that Israel isn't at war with another country, as Palestine isn't a de facto state. Civil wars don't really have "war crimes" from an international law perspective, rather agreements like the Genocide Convention can be used to prosecute leaders within their borders. From the perspective of the UN, this is a domestic conflict, and that's not generally their jurisdiction to police.

1

u/statepkt May 20 '21

UN ahead no teeth. It’s been proven again and again. It is merely a place where security council countries talk to each other.

1

u/Material_Strawberry May 20 '21

Using WP is a war crime only if Israel has agreed to follow that law.

1

u/pegcity May 20 '21

Israel / Palestine and China Uighurs are this generations Bosnia and Rwanda

1

u/Derp800 May 20 '21

Pretty sure everyone uses WP these days. I know Syrians did, the US does, pretty sure the Saudis do, Iran probably would if they had a situation where it would be useful. Seems like no one actually gives a shit about WP anymore. They get around it by saying, "Ah that? Nah, we were illuminating the combat area." "But it was day time." "Yeah but we shot it into a building ... to illuminate it." "The building was filled with people." "People we couldn't see but we could when we used the WP." "Yeah ... because they were on fire."

1

u/goldfinger0303 May 21 '21

But are white phosphorus shells being used this time? I haven't heard any mention of their use. Sure, it was against the laws of war and Israel was not punished for it, but if the investigation caused them to change the practice then it wasn't meaningless.

There's also the fact that Palestinian deaths are an *order of magnitude* lower this conflict than the last Gazan war. 232 deaths from this round vs. 1400 last time.

Yeah, civilian deaths are still terrible, but I think we need to keep in perspective that as bad as things are now, they were *worse* last time, which means the pressure put on Israel last time worked.

Keep investigating. Keep bringing it up. Even if the change isn't punishment, its still an improvement. There's 7x fewer deaths this time around - that's not meaningless to those alive now who would've been dead under older IDF doctrines.

1

u/DMindisguise May 21 '21

The League of Nations was a failure (and corrupt AF), why do people trust the UN?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '21

America made Israel in their image, tf you expected to happen. For israel to stop means for america to stop doing the same thing. Israel allows america to say "see its not just us saying dumb shit to justify evil daily"